The Dodgers faced six different pitchers Friday night, but didn’t get a hit against any of them. Kevin Millwood and five Mariners relievers combined for a no-hitter against the Dodgers in a 1-0 win Friday night at Safeco Field.
It was the first no-hitter thrown against the Dodgers since Kent Mercker did the deed for the Atlanta Braves at Dodger Stadium on April 8, 1994. It should be noted the Dodgers did not get a hit on June 28, 2008 against the Angels, but since the Dodgers won that game at home it is not recognized as a no-hitter since the Angels didn’t pitch nine innings.
It was the third no-hitter in Mariners history.
The best chance for the Dodgers at scoring came in the eighth inning, when Bobby Abreu and Jerry Hairston Jr. walked to open the inning. After they were sacrificed to third base, A.J. Ellis hit a bloop into short left field but Chone Figgins, in as a defensive replacement, was able to make the catch, which was too shallow to allow pinch runner Alex Castellanos to score from third base. Tony Gwynn Jr. struck out to end the inning.
Millwood was simply fantastic two times through the Dodgers batting order. Millwood faced the minimum 18 batters in six innings, needing just 68 pitches to do so. Millwood struck out six and the only batter he allowed to reach base was a Juan Rivera, who walked to lead off the fifth. But that lone baserunner was immediately erased on the next pitch, as Bobby Abreu grounded into a double play.
Millwood was cruising into the seventh inning with his no-hitter, but felt something on his first warmup pitch. He began to wind up for his second warmup but immediately stopped and walked off the mound. He left the game with a mild right groin strain.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. AJM Posted: June 09, 2012 at 07:54 AM (#4152245)What the #### is that ####?
And since Millwood already has a no-hitter to his credit (2003 at the Vet), having to leave the game, while unfortunate, wasn't that big a deal for him given his health (and age).
True, but didn't it also take away Pedro's five-inning perfect game?
You're conflating two different lost no-hitters. Pedro threw nine perfect innings against San Diego with Montreal, but lost the perfect game, no-hitter and shutout in the 10th. A lesser Haddix, if you will.
Boston's Devern Hansack pitched a five-inning, rain-shortened no-hitter on the final day of the season against the O's in 2006.
All of the above were wiped out (either retroactively or in the future) during the great no-hitter purge of 1991.
I think David Palmer lost a baby no-no (perfect?) as well
For years, it was considered a perfect game. Now, it's merely a combined no-hitter.
You may now commence mirthful laughter.
* - Down go all the wx--shortened games.
** - Bye-bye, Kitten Haddix.
Not only that, but it's his first MLB win.
A pompous, stupid panel put together by Fay Vincent redefined no-hitters as games of nine innings or more that ended with no hits. This eliminated such wonderful games as the Andy Hawkins 0-4 no-hitter and Harvey Haddix's loss after 12 perfect innings from the record books.
As well as (half of) the only double no-hitter in MLB history: Hippo Vaughn v. Fred Toney (May 2, 1917 - BB-Ref/Retrosheet doesn't have box scores quite back that far or I'd link it)
Yeah, I think that's the least defensible change (sadly, the Haddix game is the most defensible - he did allow a hit). Those guys threw as many no-hit innings as the rules allowed.
In a vacuum, I'd say they were right on the extra-innings games (Haddix), wrong on the 8-inning losses (Hawkins) and I could go either way on the rain-shortened types (leaning yes).
The bigger question is whether it was necessary. Was it really important for MLB to give its imprimatur on such things, or could it simply allow them to exist as they had for 100-plus years and let the fans determine what kind of significance to place on each type of performance? I'm not sure what purpose the official sanction served.
I could be wrong, but I think any army on earth that invades the Pacific Ocean is going to lose, and badly.
Hey, Caligula fought the English Channel to a draw. I would think a modern army with tanks and stuff could do better.
That's my feeling.
Did the team get a hit?
If the answer is no, then a no-hitter has occurred. If the answer is yes, then a no-hitter has not occured.
The number of innings is not relevant.
No. Oddly enough the pitcher he beat in his six inning no-hitter was...Andy Hawkins.
Edit: MLB.com lists the official no-hitters, and Johnson's is on there.
It may not be a true perfect game because he gave up a hit in the 10th, but what Pedro did that day is equally as impressive as what any of the other perfect pitchers did.
Well, how about a navy?
http://espn.go.com/classic/s/quiz/6/14.html#
http://baseballcincy.com/2012/05/02/this-date-in-reds-history-may-2/
Apparently ESPN didn't get the memo.
I assume that if some guy pitches, say, 12 innings of perfect/no-hit ball then has to be lifted for a reliever who gives up a hit that we're not giving that first guy credit either.
And Kerry Wood's game was more impressive than the lot of them. But Kerry Wood's wasn't a no-hitter, and Pedro's wasn't a perfect game. I don't think the impressiveness of the feat is the issue. To me, Ned Garvin's question is at the heart of it. Pedro and Haddix gave up hits, thus they didn't pitch no-hitters.
Of course, the official sanction is kind of meaningless. In baseball history, there is only one "perfect" pitching performance more well-known, more significant than Haddix's, and that's only because it happened in the World Series. How baseball classifies it is beside the point.
It's not us, it's MLB. But no, it's no longer considered a no-hitter.
I've asked this before, but I've never gotten an answer: Does the grating term "no-no" come from the idea of no hits/no runs, or is it just a horrible nickname for no-hitter with no other origin?
There's a somewhat legitimate argument for discounting this sort of no-hitter. Suppose the pitcher is pitching the bottom of the 8th, tied at 0-0, no hits for the home team yet. The pitcher actually has incentive to walk the bases full and a run in, to eliminate his ninth inning and the chance of losing the no-hitter then.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main